Why Megapixels Don't Matter
Camera vendors and consumer electronics retailers sell digital cameras as if the pixel count -- the number of pixels a camera's electronics can capture -- is the most important measure of quality. I'm here to tell you that pixel count has become unimportant almost to the point of irrelevance. Megapixels don't matter anymore. Each amateur photographer has a pixel count "sweet spot" that best suits his photography style and abilities. For most people, that's somewhere in the 4-to-6-megapixel range. Above that, however, increasing the number of pixels generally reduces the quality of pictures. That's right. I said it. More megapixels are bad. HERE'S WHY (link goes to my current Computerworld column). DIGG IT HERE.
9:14 AM * PERMALINK * 5 comments
Comments:
I read the column and all it basically says is that if you buy a bad camera you'll end up with bad pictures but it's not at all related to the mp count. It's like saying if you use a 3mp camera or a 12mp camera with the lense cap on you'll end up with better photos from the 3mp camera but that comparison is completely useless. Any issues mentioned will be prevalent in competing cameras with the same mp count, including data transfer speed. I agree that most people don't need a high mp camera, similar to how most people don't need a Ferrari. But don't try to tell me that a Ferrari isn't better than a Ford Focus even if I only use it to drive to work.
The article says:
For most people, that's [the sweet spot is] somewhere in the 4- to 6-megapixel range. Above that, however, increasing the number of pixels generally reduces the quality of pictures.
Scientifically, this is absolute nonsense. The more mp, the more information is captured and therefore, more detail is available on the picture. So, megapixels do matter and they clearly do not reduce the quality of the picture.
Unfortunately, this and some other questionable statements in the article could be rather misleading to the novice in digital photography. The mp count is one of the most important feature when selecting a camera, but there are many more (and more important ones)than those presented in the article. So, what's the point of this?
Perhaps, Mike Elgan should go back to the Windows Magazine.
David Pogue's
"The Truth About Digital Cameras"
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/
Boiled down: Very few people can actually notice a quality shift between a 13, 8 and 5-megapixel resolution.
I just wish I knew what camera has everything he is talking about (speed, optics, high ISO, etc) and is cheaper than other cameras with a relatively high number of MP's. Sounds like the perfect camera for me. :o)
It looks like MEGAPIXELS matter. And effects of MP increases are different an SLR and smaller point-and-shoot digital cameras.
"Experts say more megapixels can actually have adverse effects on image quality. With smaller point-and-shoots, increasing the number of pixels while keeping the image sensor the same size means smaller individual sensor pixels. Smaller pixels capture less light, worsening the signal-to-noise ratio, which leads to the ugly color speckles in images, especially those taken in indoor and low-light situations....
For the most part, SLRs face less noise with higher megapixel counts due to their image sensors, which are much larger than their point-and-shoot counterparts.
Manufacturers say they are working with their image processors to reduce noise in their high-megapixel point-and-shoots, often with favorable results."
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Do-Megapixels-Matter-Anymore-17480.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home